If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The Difference between ZGTOW & Incel, and A Better Path.

The Difference between ZGTOW & Incel, and A Better Path.

Its quite the norm to hear the word Incel, or involuntarily celibate, thrown around in the mainstream media. Often this word is attached to a person of low character, or a mass shooter, or other "pathetic" type of man. As many of things in the media, they tend to stereotype and flat out make fake news on whatever headline they can grab attention to.

I have deep empathy for the Incel community. I have read their stories and struggles with women in their lives. Some are justified, and some are not. What incels have to comment on the dating scene is true, their outlook on the quality of modern women is true, and also that men are often seen as disposable utilities to provide resources. Given time, energy, and sweat to a woman to date, marry, or even be divorced by later in life. The way women rave about being treated as sex object, Men hate being treated as resource gathering objects.

You want have sex with stacy but you can't because your circumstances placed you with a low Sexual Marketplace Value. (SMV) Either that be social awkwardness, Poor financials, or just not being attractive. The issue that I want to bring to your attention is this key factor. Why does having sex with stacy give you validation? Why should sex with a woman give your life meaning? Or better yet, why should the ability to NOT have sex with a woman give you an identity?

You as an incel, are focusing your humanity, your being and identity through a woman. Through her ability to choose or not to choose to have sex with you. You are defining your masculinity, your value as a man, and as a human through society's brainwashing that without a woman, you are of no value. This mentality of centralizing yourself, goals, dreams around a woman, is gyno-centrism. Your value as a man, and a human being is NOT through a woman.

Your value is to be determined by yourself, through your own goals, talents and personality. True Self Actualization.

Its difficult to be de-programmed from the gynocentrism society programs into men. A Mans value is determined by the woman is his life, is a LIE. A Mans value is to be determined by him alone.

Nikola Tesla, a man who left no children but was a founder of the modern world. Indeed a man who changed the world for a better human existence, but would not have been possible if he had allowed himself to be burdened with children or with a wife. This man self actualized early in his life, and this should be the ideal mentality to have, that our goals and dreams SHOULD be our own, not another's to determine.

I encourage you to meditate on how much women (or the lack of them) define who you are. Then throw all that out the window and walk away of letting them control your life. Instead, realize that sex or not having sex with a woman doesn't matter and isn't important to who you are. Instead, just walk away from playing the gynocentric game. Just go your own way. Enjoy your life, your money and your time to your own goal's and pursuits instead. Improve yourself, and self actualize.

However, your need for love and sex as a man is still there. Its difficult to go full monk mode and go full no-fap/no-sex. If you are here on this site, you will find many accounts of bestiality with female animals that are better than sex with a woman. (YMMV) If you have an animal mate to fulfill your need for love and sex, meantime you engage in your personal goals outside the validation of women or people in general, you can leave the Incel community and join the zoo community. So long as you mate is treated with ethics, love and understanding, the zoo community would welcome you into the ranks of former Incels, now zoo's or even a ZGTOW.

Thank you for taking the time to respond so courteously. I've thought about it.

I missed an important point, which is that I'm judging by the wrong standard. We hold zoophile animal owners to a very high standard of care for their animals. I would not expect the average casual incel dogfucker to live up that standard. That was the key thing I was pissed off about. But even so, there's no reason they should be any worse than the average Joe Public dog owner. Probably better. And that's okay, it's acceptable, it's not something to get angry about.

It's one of those questions that comes down to whereabouts on a spectrum you draw a line. Zoo exclusive at one end, human exclusive at the other. Someone in the middle of that spectrum may be fine with having their primary relationship be with a horse instead of a human. Someone towards the human-oriented end will most likely regard the animal as a poor substitute.

What got me was that you seemed to be pitching your comments towards someone on the human-oriented end, someone to whom sex with a dog is more like a replacement hole than their actual desired relationship. Zoos already know they're zoo. If someone needs somebody on a zoophile site to tell them that fucking dogs might be a good idea for their relationship needs, it's fair to conclude they're not all that strong on the zoophilia scale in the first place.

So we're into the "animal as poor substitute" range, and that's building in an inherent exploitation. An exploitative relationship doesn't *have* to be bad for the animal, but it's a pressure in the wrong direction. It means that the interests of the human and the animal aren't aligned, so the welfare of the animal becomes precarious.

But that's when I realised that the life of the average dog is precarious enough. Overfed, underexercised and bored out of their minds most of the time. Poor things.

WSD I am pitching bestiality as a safe sexual alternative to being a incel.

The very definition of Incel means they are NOT able to have sex with humans. Perhaps they may even come to enjoy being bestialists or mold into zoophiles. As long as the animal is consenting, taken care of and is treated to all the ethics held by the community as humane, then who are we to judge their reasons behind their sexual activity with animals? If they used their animals solely for a sexual outlet, who are we to say its wrong? The animal is happy and so is the person in the relationship.

How could I know, that by me informing a incel about bestiality, its safety and also very pleasurable experiences, that they don't go and try it? One thing about incels, is they are very meticulous. They will read everything on a subject before making choices, especially if they are on forums. You will find that even those who practiced bestiality, but were not zoos, found MORE often than sex with the animal was physically more pleasurable. Animals wouldn't be a poor substitute, they may find they even PREFER animals over humans! But thats the point of this article, to inform incels that there is a alternative sexual expression that is consensual, safe and very much viable for them.

Some of the best people i've met were former incels turned zoo/bestialists, they have very high levels of care for their animals. Incels between 20-35 usually have excess income being they had no girlfriends or familys or wives, all that money and funding would go into the care of their animals. So its NON-SENSE to believe incels would somehow be bad caretakers. That stereotype is only held by those who know nothing about incels.

ZTHorse Whoa! Time out time out, we're arguing over a misinterpretation here. You're rebutting something I didn't actually say, but I can see exactly how my phrasing threw you off and and got you to the interpretation you arrived at.

Here's a rephrase of my second paragraph, saying pretty much the same things but in a different order:

"I'm sorry, my previous comment was based on an unrealistic standard. The baseline standard of care for animals should be Joe Public's standard of care for his dog, and that's the standard I should have been applying here. If we were looking at born zoophiles, then I'd expect a much higher standard. I wouldn't expect other groups to consistently reach THAT standard, but they don't have to. What matters is that if an incel turns to relatively casual dogfucking, then at a minimum they'll be at Joe Public's standard, and they'll probably be better."

"Probably better than average" isn't the highest praise, and I acknowledge your remark that incels are above that. But I'm sure you'll agree that "better than average" isn't an insult either.

Unfortunately, the focal sentence of the paragraph was, "I would not expect the average casual incel dogfucker to live up that standard." Which is pretty much guaranteed to provoke a negative emotional reaction that will color the interpretation of the entire piece, even though the sentence actually means something quite gentle if you analyze it in context. Important little editorial lesson for me there about provocative phrasing.

With that resolved, I think we're basically cool, so let's finish up here. You've made me think about a lot of stuff, I've actually changed my mind on some of it, I know more about incels than I did earlier, and where I still disagree with you I've refined my opinions and I'll have more specific rebuttals next time around. Deal?